| Subject: | [socialcredit] exchange vs free? | | Date: | Monday, August 15, 2005 14:28:11 (EDT) | | From: | Triumphofthepast <Triumphofthepast @...com>
|
"sells labour in exchange for claim forms . . . buys labour by exchanging claim forms" (Peter)
I would avoid expressions like this. The exchange concept is that the ticket is the MEANS of exhange of other things, not that the ticket itself is exchanged. The above phrases should read "exchanges labour for consumer goods and services . . . exchanges consumer goods and services for labour."
"The 'unearned' increment due to science or social interaction . . . is referred to as 'free'. Is this adequate? I don't think so. In the same regard the dividend isn't charity. . . . If they are free, then can they be stolen, and perhaps we should apologize to the bankers? . . . It is either justly appropriated or mis-appropriated by theft. . . . So all claim forms are property rights, etc. This to me speaks of something of far greater significance of getting something free." (Peter)
It calling the fruit of this increment "free," I don't mean to imply that it belongs to no one and is "free for the taking." I mean to imply that it can be distributed without requiring anything in exchange. Even in an imaginary fully automatic, cost-free production system, it would still make sense to distribute plentiful but still finite goods by means of money and prices.
Michael
|
exchange vs free?
Reply to this message